Doesn't make it in, that says something. Not sure that is a good precedent to set especially for Rutgers since that can be part of our "vision" and sales pitch. Believe me i hate PSU...but if you win this conference and 2 teams that didn't have a better chance of getting in the playoff than its game over for getting top recruits.
If the Big ten champ...
- Thread starter theRU
- Start date
12-1 Penn St gets in... 11-2 doesn't...its really that simple....Every team can have a bad game.. (OSU vs Penn St.. Penn St vs Pitt) But then Penn St also has a 39 pt loss to Mich.. That's basically what It boiled down to..
Very well put. So much discussion, but it seems so clear to me. Maybe they should have won that game against Pitt?!? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
If PSU has one loss they are in we are out. tie breakers are SoS, conference championship, and head to head. PSU would hsave had 2 of the 3, but no tie breaker is needed if you have more losses when playing a weaker schedule.
The B1G champ not getting in, this year, means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING next year, the year after, or the 1000 years thereafter. Also, you get to tell recruits, look where B1G schools are playing this year:
OSU - playoff
Michigan - Orange Bowl
Penn State - Rose Bowl
Wisconsin - Cotton Bowl
....no other conference can say that, so, THAT'S where you go "if" a recruit freaks out because Penn State didn't EARN a playoff bid. Really no big deal whatsoever IMHO.
OSU - playoff
Michigan - Orange Bowl
Penn State - Rose Bowl
Wisconsin - Cotton Bowl
....no other conference can say that, so, THAT'S where you go "if" a recruit freaks out because Penn State didn't EARN a playoff bid. Really no big deal whatsoever IMHO.
Last edited:
How about this pitch instead. The BIG is so good we don't have to win the conference in order to make the final 4. Also this sets up the strong possibility of two BIG teams making it at some point.
I actually think OSU would still get in, in this case then I'd think Washington would be out.
OSU was the 3 seed even with Washington's conference championship. They got jumped by Clemson which I thought might happen but not by Washington. So either way you might say PSU could jump both OSU/Washington pushing Washington out and OSU to #4 or PSU just jumps Washington keeping OSU at #3. So I think a 1 loss PSU would have cost Washington not OSU.
I think the committee did fine with their assessment too. I think they did try to get what they felt the 4 best teams in and took the resume in total not focusing on any one thing which is technically what it should be. OSU is in even without the conference championship because of 3 top 10 wins, 2 of them on the road and 1 being OOC Oklahoma. Washington is in because of conference championship despite a very poor OOC but in another year that might not hold true or if hypothetically PSU was only 1 loss this year.
The B12 commissioner says he's "confused" and not sure what to tell his members is OOC important, is conference championship important, etc.. To me the answer is yes.....to both. You can't say one or the other, it's a total package. Every year is different and every circumstance and bunch of teams each year is going to be different too. You might think UW/OSU both getting in is sending mixed messages but I don't think so. As I say I take things on a case by case basis and every year is a new case with a new set of circumstances and you look at the total packages of the eligible teams that year and judge on that.
Last edited:
No 2 loss team has ever made it to the playoffs. The committee cited the 49-10 massacre by Michigan as the reason they couldn't vote PSU in. A 12-1 PSU (like MSU last year) would have easily been given the nod over OSU even though most felt OSU still had the better team last year which proved out in the post season.
^ i think 4 teams (maybe 6 at most in the future) going to 8 teams then some controversy will happen and then its 10, then 16...etc.
bottom line is the ncaa also doesn't want a blowout and frankly (ill admit psu is a good team) they would get blown out vs alabama. That hurts ratings.
2 losses-not getting in. OSU lost 1 game in a nailbiter...1 of psu losses was by 39 pts. overall body of work edges osu.
-With 3 of the top 5 teams in the country in the same division, im sure this will happen again, it is as though they already played a "wild card" round to get into playoff.
bottom line is the ncaa also doesn't want a blowout and frankly (ill admit psu is a good team) they would get blown out vs alabama. That hurts ratings.
2 losses-not getting in. OSU lost 1 game in a nailbiter...1 of psu losses was by 39 pts. overall body of work edges osu.
-With 3 of the top 5 teams in the country in the same division, im sure this will happen again, it is as though they already played a "wild card" round to get into playoff.
Don't think the fact that the B1G champion happened to miss out on the playoffs this season will have any impact on recruiting.
The real issue here moving forward is that the selection of Washington told athletic directors around the country that you don't need to challenge yourself in the nonconference portion of your schedule. Washington's nonconference schedule ranked 127th in the country; there are only 128 teams. Had Penn State played Portland State instead of Pitt, Penn State would be in the playoff. That sets a terrible precedent IMO.
Yes, I am obviously biased here, but I honestly would have rather seen Michigan be selected over Washington. At least the Wolverines have two wins over top-10 teams in the final rankings, versus one for the Huskies (zero if you look at the AP rankings).
The real issue here moving forward is that the selection of Washington told athletic directors around the country that you don't need to challenge yourself in the nonconference portion of your schedule. Washington's nonconference schedule ranked 127th in the country; there are only 128 teams. Had Penn State played Portland State instead of Pitt, Penn State would be in the playoff. That sets a terrible precedent IMO.
Yes, I am obviously biased here, but I honestly would have rather seen Michigan be selected over Washington. At least the Wolverines have two wins over top-10 teams in the final rankings, versus one for the Huskies (zero if you look at the AP rankings).
Last edited:
I think it is very hard to take a second team from a conference when they did not even win the conference. PSU would have a stronger case, despite losing the head to head by a large margin.
Oh, totally agree. That's why I believe PSU should have been in ahead of Washington. Just making the overall point that, even taking my allegiance out of the equation, I think the committee failed by rewarding a Washington that (a) played the second-worst nonconference schedule in the country and (b) had only one top-10 win, against an average Colorado team, and lost to the best team it played all season (USC). And if you look at the AP rankings, which have FSU ahead of Colorado, WU's resume gets worse.
Point (a) looks even worse when you consider that one of the primary reasons OSU made the playoff despite failing to win its league is because it has a win at Oklahoma on its resume. Committee rewarded tough scheduling on one hand, and ignored weak scheduling on the other. Ultimately, we need an eight-team playoff.
I think overall SOS is more important than just OOC. It would take a special set of circumstances to get two teams from one conference.
When the B10 goes to 16 and has a conf semifinal this will be solved:
East 1 PSU vs West 2 Nebraska (or Michigan if they take the best overall for the Wild cards)
West 1 Wisconsin vs East 2 Ohio St
You would probably have had a PSU vs OSU rematch for the championship with the winner to the playoffs.
East 1 PSU vs West 2 Nebraska (or Michigan if they take the best overall for the Wild cards)
West 1 Wisconsin vs East 2 Ohio St
You would probably have had a PSU vs OSU rematch for the championship with the winner to the playoffs.
This problem can be solved by just eliminating divisions. There's no good reason why geography should have prevented the B1G Championship from being a PSU-OSU rematch.
While I completely agree with all this, the flip side is Ohio State is in because they beat Oklahoma. If Ohio State's non-conference was BG, Tulsa, and Cincinnati, Ohio State is out. So you either schedule garbage, win your conference and hope there's 4 or fewer P5 conference teams with as many or fewer losses than you (2014 Baylor, I'm looking in your direction...), or you schedule tough and buy yourself some leeway.
+1 CV is talking out his #$$, like usual. Washington won its P5 conference and had a better record. Oh, and it didn't lose to Pitt. Get over it.
And if you go to 16, teams 17 and 18 will complain. Who cares?
If you don't play well enough to win your conference or guarantee spot #6 or 7, no one has to listen to you whine. Plenty of opportunity there - seize it or shut up.
Where is selection criteria in writing? I notice the selection committee released their criteria last week AFTER the season was over? Shouldn't rules be made BEFORE a season is played?
Last year the one of the MAIN criteria was CONFERENCE championship. EVERY team in the playoff before this year was a conference champ.
The problem is they are making up their criteria as they go.
When you get to teams 9 and 10 not getting into an 8 team playoff, the only people who will complain loudly will be the fans of teams 9 and 10.
The rest of the CFB world will not care much.
I like an 8 team playoff, but it also dilutes the value of the rest of the bowls who are not involved in the playoff.
Every team in the playoffs has also had no more than one loss. If they're making it up as they go, they're being pretty consistent about it.
Never had multiple 2+ loss conference champs either. Conference champs each of the 3 years:
2014: Alabama 12-1, FSU, 13-0, Oregon 12-1, Ohio State 12-1 (Baylor 11-1)
2015: Clemson 13-0, Alabama 12-1, Michigan State 12-1, Oklahoma 11-1 (Stanford (11-2)
2016: Alabama 13-0, Clemson 12-1, Washington 12-1 (Penn State 11-2, Oklahoma 10-2).
There's nothing to "get over." The committee spoke, and we all have to live with it, whether we agree or not. I'd classify my feeling around 12:30 p.m. yesterday as mild disappointment, certainly not uncontrolled anger or sadness. It is what it is. I realized it was a coin flip whether PSU would get in, and given that the alternative to a semifinal against Alabama was a Rose Bowl trip against USC, it's far from the end of the world.
As I said in another thread, I'd have preferred Michigan get in over Washington as well. My primary concern here is with the message the committee sent. Programs can now schedule directional schools in the nonconference and FCS programs, and as long as they go undefeated or close to it in their league, they can be rewarded with a playoff birth. No need to test yourself, which was touted as one of the great side effects of moving to this system in the first place.
And to touch on the point about Ohio State, the Buckeyes did the opposite of Washington by winning at Oklahoma. OSU deserves to be rewarded for that. My problem is, the committee was hypocritical in how it treated OSU and Washington. Eight teams: five conference champs, two or three at-large depending how you feel about G5 teams. First-round games on campus. Make it happen.
You don't have an argument. There's simply no reason a two-loss team should have gotten in over a one-loss conference champ. It's not like UW lost an OOC game. In fact, Washington destroyed all the OOC teams on its schedule.
Penn State played Kent State, Temple and a Pitt team that turned out a bit better than expected, largely because it BEAT you.
Michigan played Hawaii, UCF and a Colorado team that most expected to be a weak P5.
Washington played Idaho, Portland State and a RU team that proved a weaker P5 than expected.
Alabama played Western Kentucky, Kent State and Chattanooga (lulz, SEC, SEC, SEC!!).
Ohio State did play Oklahoma ... and Tulsa and Bowling Green
Clemson edged past Troy, played South Carolina State and played a mediocre South Carolina team in its annual rivalry.
Why should OOC be such a deciding factor against a one-loss team (besides "because PSU could get in that way")? That would have been terrible precedent - "IF the OOC team you scheduled years in advance happens to be much worse than expected, it might just keep you out of the playoffs."
Also, you never know what might get you in or keep you out, so you can't look at any one year and schedule cupcakes thinking that'll be the ticket. An argument in OSU's favor was its convincing win against Oklahoma. If Michigan doesn't blow it against Iowa, it probably gets in as a one-loss team over Washington (should be over Clemson, imo) because of a stronger schedule, including that CO win.
Penn State played Kent State, Temple and a Pitt team that turned out a bit better than expected, largely because it BEAT you.
Michigan played Hawaii, UCF and a Colorado team that most expected to be a weak P5.
Washington played Idaho, Portland State and a RU team that proved a weaker P5 than expected.
Alabama played Western Kentucky, Kent State and Chattanooga (lulz, SEC, SEC, SEC!!).
Ohio State did play Oklahoma ... and Tulsa and Bowling Green
Clemson edged past Troy, played South Carolina State and played a mediocre South Carolina team in its annual rivalry.
Why should OOC be such a deciding factor against a one-loss team (besides "because PSU could get in that way")? That would have been terrible precedent - "IF the OOC team you scheduled years in advance happens to be much worse than expected, it might just keep you out of the playoffs."
Also, you never know what might get you in or keep you out, so you can't look at any one year and schedule cupcakes thinking that'll be the ticket. An argument in OSU's favor was its convincing win against Oklahoma. If Michigan doesn't blow it against Iowa, it probably gets in as a one-loss team over Washington (should be over Clemson, imo) because of a stronger schedule, including that CO win.
Overall record:
W: 12-1
P: 11-2
Best wins:
W: #10 Colorado, #18 Stanford, #19 Utah (not in AP), Washington State
P: #3 Ohio State, #8 Wisconsin, #24 Temple, Iowa (in both AP/USAT)
vs. Top 10
W: 1-1 (0-1 if you use AP poll, which has Colorado behind FSU)
P: 2-1
vs. Top 25
W: 3-1 (2-1 w/ AP)
P: 3-2 (4-2 w/ AP)
Nonconference SOS:
W: 127th
P: 12th
Washington has the advantage in one category: overall W-L. Thanks to its awful nonconference slate. Add in the fact that PSU won the best conference in the country, and it's clear that the margin between the teams was razor thin.
Again, I don't think it is some gigantic outrage that Penn State wasn't selected this year, but to say there isn't an argument to be had is absurd. Virtually everyone who covers college football was having this argument for 12 hours after the B1G Championship, and many agreed with me.
Why do you keep focusing on OOC SOS? Who cares? I can understand overall SOS.
Because the committee itself has talked about the importance of scheduling up out of conference. This year it's THE reason Ohio State is in the playoff.
But let's take a look at overall schedules as well:
Washington's opponents, which included a 3-8 FCS program, went a collective 78-78 this season. Washington played five teams that finished at or above .500 and one team that won 10 or more games.
Penn State's opponents, which did not include an FCS program, went a collective 88-70 this season. Penn State played nine teams that finished at or above .500 and four teams that won 10 or more games.
If you want to argue that Washington deserves the playoff spot because it had a better record as a conference champ, by all means, go ahead. But if you do that, you're inherently saying Washington received a playoff spot because it played a weak nonconference schedule, because that's what accounts for the 12-1 vs. 11-2 difference.
Ask yourself this, had PSU played Akron instead of Pitt, would PSU be in the playoff? If the answer is "yes," then how deserving is Washington when all of the other metrics I've listed in the past two posts point toward PSU (or Michigan for that matter).
Last edited:
OSU got credIt for beating Oklahoma, not just playing them. Teams play 12 regular season games, they all count.
I think you will seeing weaker scheduling as a result of this year's selections. OSU benefitted, perhaps, from playing and winning vs. Oklahoma. But the flip side of the coin is Oklahoma which would have been better off scheduling and beating Portland State. And what if PSU had played Portland State instead of Pitt?
Coaches are going to look at it and tell their AD to get Portland State (or schools or heir ilk) on the phone.
As fans who want to see good non-conference match-ups, we lose.
Coaches are going to look at it and tell their AD to get Portland State (or schools or heir ilk) on the phone.
As fans who want to see good non-conference match-ups, we lose.
Latest
-
01
The Knight Report
Rutgers vs Indiana odds: Point spread released on Scarlet Knights, Hoosiers
-
02
The Knight Report Football
Every throw from Rutgers Football QB Dylan Lonergan versus Howard
-
03
The Knight Report
Rutgers Football PFF Grades + Snap Counts versus Howard
-
04
The Knight Report
Rutgers Football Postgame Show: Howard Bison Edition - TKR Pod
-
05
On3 Football
How to Watch College Football: TV schedule, start times, streaming info for Week 4 games